On the two dismissals on my civil suit against Charles Perry, who just happens to be a state senator in Texas, his BFF from Sunday School the District Attorney in Lubbock, Matt Powell fir false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and civil rights violations, etc…and my repeated attempts to get a Protective Order under the Domestic Violence Acts:
A well noted reporter that I am not able to name pointed out that they only get dismissals on my civil cases in hearings where I am not present to testify or refute their claims or make a legal argument and the reporter said “That speaks to the validity of Ms Ortiz’s claims and to her ability to understand and argue the law. If there was no validity to her claims and she was not effective in the Courtroom, they would not care if she were in the courtroom. They intentionally keep her out of the Courtroom because her claims are valid and because she can effectively argue the law. They just wouldn’t care at all if she were there if she was mentally ill in fact they would want her there to bring that out. They have instead done the opposite. They don’t want her anywhere near that courtroom when they get these dismissals ans dismissals that do not comport with the evidence she has filed or the law or prior like cases. “
Ortiz says: “Anyone can pull the transcripts from the one hearing, in January, 2018, that I was in that actually led to the Magistrate Judge, Jodi Jayne, denying Perry’s Motion to Dismiss in her Report and Recommendation arising from the hearing. That was the initial suit filed, now awaiting Supreme Court Conference scheduled for October 1, 2019, filed in the US Court, Northern District of Tulsa, 4:17-00489- JHP-JFJ. The Supreme Court Case No. Is 18-9170.
Clearly I am capable of arguing my case effectively enough that Perry and Powell have made sure when they get dismissals, I am not in that Courtroom to do the same. This is not indicative of honest upstanding citizens but rather people who have simply added another piece to the puzzle on a criminal case. “
If Perry and Powell’s attorneys were confident in their ability to effectively argue the law against Ortiz and material facts were not intentionally and maliciously misrepresented in Court, they would not intentionally keep her out of the Courtroom when attempting to get dismissals that do not comport with reality, similar cases, statute, evidence, and material facts. Ortiz has not one day of law school but has educated herself as she goes along and made a lot of mistakes, but apparently has been effective enough against Defendant’s seasoned attorneys they are too afraid to go up against her in a Court of law despite the lopsided situation that exists as to her lack of legal education. On the two dismissals of her suits, she was not in the Courtroom to refute their claims or argue the law. There is a reason for that. These actions are considered to be part of the puzzle on any ongoing criminal cases against these men.
Below is a link to the Writ of Certiorari filed by Ortiz, scheduled for Conference with the US Supreme Court on October 1, 2019.
Ortiz has continued to have problems with Mr Perry having his people photigraph her where she is, which he could not even know by any legal means and should not care but for being a nutty obsessed stalker. He continues to interfere in her income and has told people he wants her to starve and/or find a way to arrange that second false arrest to force her to take his bribes. It was reported that Perry said “She is going to do what I tell her. She can starve, rot in prison, I can buy a judge and a jury, or she can be with me, do exactly what I tell her, and tell people what I tell her to say. ” We believe Perrys intent is to force Ortiz into some bazaar relationship with him she never wants to be in, only to get close enough to her to kill her himself being the first attempt through his hitman failed. He should not know or care where she is or works or lives at all and only does because he is stalking her.
This conversation was the direct result of Perry’s proxy stalker’s efforts and harassment at Ortiz’s workplace. There is no legitimate purpose for this conduct directed at Ortiz in Oklahoma at her place of work. All contact from Charles Perry is unwanted by Ortiz and it is a crime. What interest would any normal customer have in what brand of gum Ortiz chews, ciggarette she smokes, her real name being given at work, her relative’s names, why she is working where she is and why she won’t quit her job? What business is that of Perry or any defendant either. Their contact is unwanted and a crime. If this is true, and it does appear to be, any evidence arising from the incidents described in these conversations obtained by law enforcement and passed on to Ortiz would then substantiate her claims that Perry is stalking her at work in Oklahoma.